calculate_dcf_valuation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the calculation type without explaining assumption constraints (e.g., growth rate vs discount rate) or what the output represents. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, grammatically clean sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the purpose, though it lacks supporting detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter financial calculation with an output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the model's assumptions, parameter relationships, or return format, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description should compensate. However, the description does not mention free_cash_flow, growth_rate, discount_rate, terminal_growth_rate, or projection_years, offering no semantic guidance for parameter meanings.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it calculates enterprise value using a constant-growth DCF model, which is a specific verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_enterprise_value by specifying the model type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like calculate_enterprise_value or run_dcf_sensitivity_analysis. The description does not offer any context for choosing this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.